|
TdF'13 Stage 20 - Annecy to Annecy-Semnoz (July 20)
|
| atlanta |
Posted on 20-07-2013 17:25
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1220
Joined: 31-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
Porte comes in smiling and fresh.
Talansky comes in with his face beat red and basically crying. I'm going to do a face comparison.
What a ride by Talansky. He continues to show great recovery. All he has to do for the future is go to races that Quintana is not at, and he will be a prolific winner.
More like a smile/grimace. And what lol a prolific winner, he was nowhere all race he as shown GOOD recovery, like the Vuelta last year he never goes with the best. So it's not just Quintana who is better. Uran, Henao, Betancur are all better and then you have older guys like Nibali, Froome, etc... |
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 20-07-2013 17:25
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Daggen wrote:
Obviously I wasn't the only one who thought this 
Lets say Porte could win, why would Froome not go and win again?
I dont undertstand why people think Froome would just roll over and give the tour to someone else, after all the reason why sky took Froome and not wiggins this year is among a whole bunch of other things, also that Froome could have destroyed Wiggins last year. |
| |
|
|
| atlanta |
Posted on 20-07-2013 17:29
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1220
Joined: 31-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Spilak23 wrote:
Quintana, Sagan, Kwiatkowski, Bardet, Moser, Pinot, Bouhanni
1990! What a year
Lol Bouhanni, what you shmocking |
| |
|
|
| Nin1388 |
Posted on 20-07-2013 17:33
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1565
Joined: 04-09-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
atlanta wrote:
Nin1388 wrote:
CountArach wrote:
He could win GT like Vuelta some year, not TdF due to long climbs. Nevertheless great performance. Despite leading most of the way up the mountain still managed to beat Froome.
Also Quintana proved to be better that Froome. If not for 1st week were Quintana was used in stupid strategy by Movistar would have been closer.
Yeah course he was, lol you serious?. No matter if Quintana did not attack silly in first week he would not have won, he would not have took 4 mins back from the ITT's. The final week he as been stronger but I think CF was fine today, Alpe d'Huez he bonked that's only stage Quintana took time. No way he stays with CF on AX-3 imo, and Ventoux yes he attacked silly but CF did not even go all out. The gap would have still been about 3-4 minutes imo.
So you did not even see TdF? Did you?
Ax3 Domain- Quintana attacked like 1 climb before, while Froome was behind Porte and Kennaugh. And attacks only on last climb.
Next day- all finished together.
1st TT- Froome gets 3min over Quintana
Mt. Ventoux- Quintana attacks 13-14kms to go while Froome is behind Porte and Kennaugh. And attacks only last 7kms.
2nd TT- Froome gets 40s.
Alp D'Huez- Quintana gets 1m.
Next day- All finish together.
Today- Quintana gets 30s.
If you see if not for stupid Movistar strategy he would have been like 2m or something if not closer. |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 25-11-2024 12:49
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 20-07-2013 17:43
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Nin1388 wrote:
So you did not even see TdF? Did you?
Ax3 Domain- Quintana attacked like 1 climb before, while Froome was behind Porte and Kennaugh. And attacks only on last climb.
Next day- all finished together.
1st TT- Froome gets 3min over Quintana
Mt. Ventoux- Quintana attacks 13-14kms to go while Froome is behind Porte and Kennaugh. And attacks only last 7kms.
2nd TT- Froome gets 40s.
Alp D'Huez- Quintana gets 1m.
Next day- All finish together.
Today- Quintana gets 30s.
If you see if not for stupid Movistar strategy he would have been like 2m or something if not closer.
You have to remember that Froome never saw Quintana as a threat, so who knows what would have happend if Moviestar had shown that Quintana would go for the win.
You can be sure that Froome wouldn´t have been so inactive and wouldn´t have just attacked Quintana, but he would have destroyed him. |
| |
|
|
| atlanta |
Posted on 20-07-2013 17:47
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1220
Joined: 31-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Nin1388 wrote:
atlanta wrote:
Nin1388 wrote:
CountArach wrote:
He could win GT like Vuelta some year, not TdF due to long climbs. Nevertheless great performance. Despite leading most of the way up the mountain still managed to beat Froome.
Also Quintana proved to be better that Froome. If not for 1st week were Quintana was used in stupid strategy by Movistar would have been closer.
Yeah course he was, lol you serious?. No matter if Quintana did not attack silly in first week he would not have won, he would not have took 4 mins back from the ITT's. The final week he as been stronger but I think CF was fine today, Alpe d'Huez he bonked that's only stage Quintana took time. No way he stays with CF on AX-3 imo, and Ventoux yes he attacked silly but CF did not even go all out. The gap would have still been about 3-4 minutes imo.
So you did not even see TdF? Did you?
Ax3 Domain- Quintana attacked like 1 climb before, while Froome was behind Porte and Kennaugh. And attacks only on last climb.
Next day- all finished together.
1st TT- Froome gets 3min over Quintana
Mt. Ventoux- Quintana attacks 13-14kms to go while Froome is behind Porte and Kennaugh. And attacks only last 7kms.
2nd TT- Froome gets 40s.
Alp D'Huez- Quintana gets 1m.
Next day- All finish together.
Today- Quintana gets 30s.
If you see if not for stupid Movistar strategy he would have been like 2m or something if not closer.
Well done Einstein you finally admit he would not have won, Quintana took 1 min on Alpe cuz of a bonk, you cant realy say today cuz we don't know. Just like you say we cant really count Quintana attacking as a fair comparison. But trust me Quintana would not have won the TDF. CF was in great shape first week he would have beat Quintana on AX-3 still. And Ventoux CF was with Quintana for like 5 kms so he could have tokk way more time(yes I know NQ attacked 14 kms out but CF did not even go full gas).
EDIT: just read you dint say he would have won the TDF he would have been closer, My bad.
Edited by atlanta on 20-07-2013 17:48
|
| |
|
|
| Nin1388 |
Posted on 20-07-2013 17:48
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1565
Joined: 04-09-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
You have to remember that Froome never saw Quintana as a threat, so who knows what would have happend if Moviestar had shown that Quintana would go for the win.
You can be sure that Froome wouldn´t have been so inactive and wouldn´t have just attacked Quintana, but he would have destroyed him.
Even Movistar were not sure about Quintana if he could be a challenge in GC. |
| |
|
|
| Nin1388 |
Posted on 20-07-2013 17:51
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1565
Joined: 04-09-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
atlanta wrote:
Nin1388 wrote:
atlanta wrote:
Nin1388 wrote:
CountArach wrote:
He could win GT like Vuelta some year, not TdF due to long climbs. Nevertheless great performance. Despite leading most of the way up the mountain still managed to beat Froome.
Also Quintana proved to be better that Froome. If not for 1st week were Quintana was used in stupid strategy by Movistar would have been closer.
Yeah course he was, lol you serious?. No matter if Quintana did not attack silly in first week he would not have won, he would not have took 4 mins back from the ITT's. The final week he as been stronger but I think CF was fine today, Alpe d'Huez he bonked that's only stage Quintana took time. No way he stays with CF on AX-3 imo, and Ventoux yes he attacked silly but CF did not even go all out. The gap would have still been about 3-4 minutes imo.
So you did not even see TdF? Did you?
Ax3 Domain- Quintana attacked like 1 climb before, while Froome was behind Porte and Kennaugh. And attacks only on last climb.
Next day- all finished together.
1st TT- Froome gets 3min over Quintana
Mt. Ventoux- Quintana attacks 13-14kms to go while Froome is behind Porte and Kennaugh. And attacks only last 7kms.
2nd TT- Froome gets 40s.
Alp D'Huez- Quintana gets 1m.
Next day- All finish together.
Today- Quintana gets 30s.
If you see if not for stupid Movistar strategy he would have been like 2m or something if not closer.
Well done Einstein you finally admit he would not have won, Quintana took 1 min on Alpe cuz of a bonk, you cant realy say today cuz we don't know. Just like you say we cant really count Quintana attacking as a fair comparison. But trust me Quintana would not have won the TDF. CF was in great shape first week he would have beat Quintana on AX-3 still. And Ventoux CF was with Quintana for like 5 kms so he could have tokk way more time(yes I know NQ attacked 14 kms out but CF did not even go full gas).
EDIT: just read you dint say he would have won the TDF he would have been closer, My bad.
Yes closer also means 5m (instead of 5m 11s) and not necessarily the win. |
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 20-07-2013 17:55
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Nin1388 wrote:
Even Movistar were not sure about Quintana if he could be a challenge in GC.
Ya, for them Valverde was their top contender. |
| |
|
|
| ruben |
Posted on 20-07-2013 18:31
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7721
Joined: 23-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
For Movistar Valverde is always their top contender, which was bs because any blind cycling fan could see that Quintana is CLEARLy better. He was better the entire season. But hey, Unzue's only tactic the last years was everything for Valverde. Even when it's obvious he isn't the best bet.
So glad that Valverde had bad luck and Quintana had free reign so everyone's eyes are openend finally. Quintana is the new king of Movistar. Hope they now slave Valverde for Quintana in every race where they both start |
| |
|
|
| jph27 |
Posted on 20-07-2013 18:47
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7339
Joined: 20-03-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
Missed this stage (and all the summit finishes), sigh. One has to wonder how many GT's Quintana will win? |
| |
|
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 20-07-2013 18:48
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
ruben wrote:
For Movistar Valverde is always their top contender, which was bs because any blind cycling fan could see that Quintana is CLEARLy better. He was better the entire season. But hey, Unzue's only tactic the last years was everything for Valverde. Even when it's obvious he isn't the best bet.
So glad that Valverde had bad luck and Quintana had free reign so everyone's eyes are openend finally. Quintana is the new king of Movistar. Hope they now slave Valverde for Quintana in every race where they both start
These posts are a good example why you sometimes piss me off. Every blind cycling fan couldn't see that Quintana was clearly better and there were indeed many question for him to be answered; had he the stamina, how much would he lose on the TT's, would he someday be caught on a flat stage, would he have the consistency to ride at his max for 3 weeks. He answered all those questions brilliantly and clearly is better NOW and should be their GC-rider next year. Apart from that Valverde rode a VERY good Tour and I'm pretty sure that before the Tour, the 'safest' bet for a podium, objectively, was Valverde.
I know that you absolutely loved that Valverde was caught by your boys on that stage, you have probably said that 5-10 times. That part still pisses me off, as you several times have credited that to the fact that he is a fucking doper. I think, that no matter what, the Ventoux-stage would've shown that Quintana was better than Valverde. Then he would still have been able to ride like he has done, cause even though Valverde didnt got blasted by Belkin, I can assure you that Unzue wouldnt pull Quintana back at neither Alpe d' Huez nor Annecy Semnoz, so really, it wouldnt have changed anything. Even though Quintana was the GC-rider now being counted on at Ventoux, he still made that attack with 13 kms to finish..
i dunno why you hate Valverde (as Conta, Froome, Rodriguez and so on prob is even more suspicious...) that much, but I dont think such a post is fair towards Valverde as he would have had a very good opportunity for a podium if he Belkin didn't destroy his chances, which, again, is ironic, as the whole Belkin-team started to fade from that day on and nearly lose everything at the ground and getting passed by Fuglsang |
| |
|
|
| TimoCycling |
Posted on 20-07-2013 18:52
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1765
Joined: 27-08-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Obvious doping by J-rod, Quintana and Froome if you ask me. I just don't believe it . Especially the face of Quintana, like he's reading the newspaper on an early morning in June.... |
| |
|
|
| ruben |
Posted on 20-07-2013 18:59
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7721
Joined: 23-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
No I mainly loved Valverde losing time because Quintana would become leader. Heck in his first pro year he already showed how much fucking awesomeness he possesses, especially in true mountain stages. Already in the 3rd week of the Vuelta, where admittely he was bad in the 1st week, he showed he was better than Valverde, sometimes even having to wait for him in the final mt stages.
To me there was no doubt Quitnana was better. Plus I've hated Valverde ever since the Puerto business as I explained before. I cannot understand sympathy for the man. Especially since most races Valverde has won was by pure wheelsucking (either teammate or others) and then sprinting to the win. Heck even Rodriguez has more character (as proven today) by attacking further out sometimes.
It has absolutely 0.00 to do with dutchies or Belkin.
Edited by ruben on 20-07-2013 18:59
|
| |
|
|
| BritPCMFan |
Posted on 20-07-2013 19:03
|
Stagiare
Posts: 245
Joined: 03-06-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
Daggen wrote:
Obviously I wasn't the only one who thought this
Lets say Porte could win, why would Froome not go and win again?
I dont undertstand why people think Froome would just roll over and give the tour to someone else, after all the reason why sky took Froome and not wiggins this year is among a whole bunch of other things, also that Froome could have destroyed Wiggins last year.
Porte isn't going for Tour anyway. His leading at next years Giro, that said that ages ago (I think when he signed new contract?) |
| |
|
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 20-07-2013 19:04
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Still, i would have to disagree about that part that Quintana clearly was the better rider - dude is 23 years and rides his first TdF. Valverde was safer to count on for the GC, but they had only made it clear on Movistar before the Tour, that Quintana would be given his own opportunities.
And as I said before, Quintana becoming the leader didnt make any difference as all, except just losting Froome's worst rival for the GC at that time. Quintana wouldnt have played it any differently if he wasnt the leader - as I said, he wouldnt be pulled back at Alpe d' Huez or Annecy
Edited by Riis123 on 20-07-2013 19:06
|
| |
|
|
| ruben |
Posted on 20-07-2013 19:08
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7721
Joined: 23-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Also the UCI Database is pretty bad. Who gave Froome potential 8? Why is Navarro in the top 10? Who gave Contador age_decline 30? |
| |
|
|
| Metriz- |
Posted on 20-07-2013 19:10
|
Domestique
Posts: 433
Joined: 19-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
TimoCycling wrote:
Obvious doping by J-rod, Quintana and Froome if you ask me. I just don't believe it . Especially the face of Quintana, like he's reading the newspaper on an early morning in June....
Yes, it's definetly more believable, and you know they are clean, when they look like Bjarne Riis on Hautacam in 1996!!1! |
| |
|
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 20-07-2013 19:17
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
ruben wrote:
Also the UCI Database is pretty bad. Who gave Froome potential 8? Why is Navarro in the top 10? Who gave Contador age_decline 30?
*age_decline 28 |
| |
|
|
| XxMillad24Xx |
Posted on 20-07-2013 19:42
|
Stagiare
Posts: 235
Joined: 21-06-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Andy never cracked on that last climb, Maxime Monfort tweeted that he had a bad day and Andy waited to help him up the climb.
"Cycling is now the the world's cleanest sport." - Chris Froome
|
| |
|
